Several times over the past many years, I’ve ended a column about California’s greatest natural asset with the same words:
The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
Today I’m beginning with that thought.
The words are not mine. The late Peter Douglas, former executive director of the California Coastal Commission, uttered them many years ago. He was pointing out that it would take constant vigilance to fend off repeated attempts to chip away at the protections he helped enshrine in the Coastal Act.
Over the last few days, the person doing the chipping was Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pushed a bill that would have shredded a page of the Coastal Act in a way that would have benefited a longtime campaign donor.
Odious, yes, but if you’re thinking of running for president one day, why not go for broke?
Coastal protection advocates held their breath late into the night Friday as the clock ticked at the end of the legislative session. But before I let you know how it played out, I’m going to back up a bit.
I’d just returned last week from a trip back east, where I’d taken photos of signs blocking my access to some beaches in Connecticut and New York. A typical under-handed tactic they use is to prohibit parking in beach lots unless you show proof of residence.
If you’re not a resident, goodbye. The parking lot could be nearly empty and they’ll send you away, and then you’ll discover there is nowhere else to park within easy or safe walking distance. It’s a surefire way to essentially privatize beaches.
So I came home eager to remind everyone that we have something special in California, and that we should all be lighting candles on the cake celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
That’s the framework that established guidelines regarding public access, conservation and development. And it came about because more than half a century ago, when it appeared that the coast was becoming too privatized and industrialized, a citizen uprising led to the protections we enjoy today.
Now back to Gov. Newsom.
I’d barely unpacked my vacation bags when a gaggle of sources and news reports grabbed my attention, and the Calmatters story and headline neatly summed things up:
“Newsom pushes environmental carve-out for campaign donor’s Santa Monica project.”
The project, Calmatters reported, “belongs to Jeff Worthe, who, along with his wife, Kristin Worthe, has donated more than $274,000 to Newsom’s campaigns and inaugural fund between 2018 and 2022, according to state campaign finance records.”
Susan Jordan, of the California Coastal Protection Network, was aghast.
“You don’t expect to have a governor do something so under-handed as this, and now that it’s out in the open, there’s no shame about it,” she told me. ”And he would be the first person to carve out an exemption in the Coastal Act, that has survived all these other attacks over the last 50 years.”
Nice timing, Mr. Governor. I’d just written last month about how President Trump has launched his own attempt to torpedo the Coastal Commission and California’s long-established authority on matters of coastal conservation and development.
You’d like to see the California governor stand tall rather than come off like Trump’s caddy, kicking sand in the faces of those who have taken up stewardship of the coast.
Look, not everyone loves the Coastal Act or the Coastal Commission, which is seen by many as obstructionist and slow-footed. Sometimes, finding the right balance between sensible development and coastal conservation can be complicated.
But in essence, California is about the idea that the coast is not owned by anyone, it’s owned by everyone.
In the case of the Santa Monica project, Jordan asked the right question.
“Why the exemption?”
Is there something so odious about a reworked design that the only way to hustle it across the finish line is to give it a free pass?
“If you want to build in the coastal zone, you need to go through the Coastal Act,” Jordan told me. “That’s why we have the Coastal Act, and I don’t think it should be corrupted by this developer or by the governor.”
Newsom, when asked recently by a reporter to explain what he was up to, had this to say:
“I’m not going to comment about any pending bills.”
Why not? If you’re going to tear up the rule book on coastal development, doesn’t the public deserve an explanation, even if you’ve already got one foot out the door?
The Worthe project would sit just up from the beach in Santa Monica, and, in previous incarnations, it has included a luxury hotel, apartments and a Frank Gehry museum. The Coastal Commission signed off on it a few years ago after extended tussles and finally an agreement regarding low-cost housing provisions. After getting the green light, Worthe pulled back, and his permit expired.
But then Newsom came to the rescue with a trailer bill that aides were still pushing as of Thursday, sources tell me. It would have allowed for an unnamed project in that same location to be put forward again, this time without normal regulatory review in the event that Santa Monica failed to complete its own local coastal plan (LCP) by 2028
And since it could be difficult to meet that deadline, Newsom’s bill essentially provided a way to escape the kind of critical review demanded by the Coastal Act.
In anticipation of a Friday meeting between Newsom and the leaders of the Senate and Assembly, Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Santa Monica) rallied legislators to implore the governor to back off.
Zbur, who had been working on his own coastal development and public access bill and helping assemble Santa Monica’s LCP, was one of a dozen legislators who signed a salty missive that was sent Friday to Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.
“We are frustrated that, once again, we must devote time and energy to working to defeat this harmful proposal that creates unprecedented exemptions from the Coastal Act,” the letter said.
It must have made an impact. Late Friday night, when the last whistle blew at the sausage factory, the Newsom exemption had been pulled back.
Victory for the coast.
Zbur told me Saturday morning that it was not clear how the matter had played out when the governor met with the two legislative leaders Friday, but Zbur was grateful to all three of them for letting the matter drop.
“This wasn’t about the project,” Zbur said. “It was about the precedent that would have been set on having people come in and exempting a certain project from the Coastal Act. It would have been a terrible precedent.”
Despite this threat and the recent big-footing by Trump, there’s a silver lining in all of this.
“As long as there are people who want to monetize the coast for their own benefit, you’re going to need people to rise up and say no,” said Kim Delfino, an environmental attorney and founder of Earth Advocacy.
And people did rise up.
Last week, dozens of organizations signed a letter to the governor opposing any “last-minute legislation to create dangerous exemptions to the Coastal Act.” Among them were Heal the Bay, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, L.A. Waterkeeper, Azul, the Surfrider Foundation and Orange County Coastkeeper.
I can think of several ways to end this column, but at the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think I can do better than to lean on this reminder:
The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Commentary: Gov. Newsom backs off from shameful gambit, and it’s a victory for California coast
Several times over the past many years, I’ve ended a column about California’s greatest natural asset with the same words:
The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
Today I’m beginning with that thought.
The words are not mine. The late Peter Douglas, former executive director of the California Coastal Commission, uttered them many years ago. He was pointing out that it would take constant vigilance to fend off repeated attempts to chip away at the protections he helped enshrine in the Coastal Act.
Over the last few days, the person doing the chipping was Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pushed a bill that would have shredded a page of the Coastal Act in a way that would have benefited a longtime campaign donor.
Odious, yes, but if you’re thinking of running for president one day, why not go for broke?
Coastal protection advocates held their breath late into the night Friday as the clock ticked at the end of the legislative session. But before I let you know how it played out, I’m going to back up a bit.
I’d just returned last week from a trip back east, where I’d taken photos of signs blocking my access to some beaches in Connecticut and New York. A typical under-handed tactic they use is to prohibit parking in beach lots unless you show proof of residence.
If you’re not a resident, goodbye. The parking lot could be nearly empty and they’ll send you away, and then you’ll discover there is nowhere else to park within easy or safe walking distance. It’s a surefire way to essentially privatize beaches.
So I came home eager to remind everyone that we have something special in California, and that we should all be lighting candles on the cake celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
That’s the framework that established guidelines regarding public access, conservation and development. And it came about because more than half a century ago, when it appeared that the coast was becoming too privatized and industrialized, a citizen uprising led to the protections we enjoy today.
Now back to Gov. Newsom.
I’d barely unpacked my vacation bags when a gaggle of sources and news reports grabbed my attention, and the Calmatters story and headline neatly summed things up:
“Newsom pushes environmental carve-out for campaign donor’s Santa Monica project.”
The project, Calmatters reported, “belongs to Jeff Worthe, who, along with his wife, Kristin Worthe, has donated more than $274,000 to Newsom’s campaigns and inaugural fund between 2018 and 2022, according to state campaign finance records.”
Susan Jordan, of the California Coastal Protection Network, was aghast.
“You don’t expect to have a governor do something so under-handed as this, and now that it’s out in the open, there’s no shame about it,” she told me. ”And he would be the first person to carve out an exemption in the Coastal Act, that has survived all these other attacks over the last 50 years.”
Nice timing, Mr. Governor. I’d just written last month about how President Trump has launched his own attempt to torpedo the Coastal Commission and California’s long-established authority on matters of coastal conservation and development.
You’d like to see the California governor stand tall rather than come off like Trump’s caddy, kicking sand in the faces of those who have taken up stewardship of the coast.
Look, not everyone loves the Coastal Act or the Coastal Commission, which is seen by many as obstructionist and slow-footed. Sometimes, finding the right balance between sensible development and coastal conservation can be complicated.
But in essence, California is about the idea that the coast is not owned by anyone, it’s owned by everyone.
In the case of the Santa Monica project, Jordan asked the right question.
“Why the exemption?”
Is there something so odious about a reworked design that the only way to hustle it across the finish line is to give it a free pass?
“If you want to build in the coastal zone, you need to go through the Coastal Act,” Jordan told me. “That’s why we have the Coastal Act, and I don’t think it should be corrupted by this developer or by the governor.”
Newsom, when asked recently by a reporter to explain what he was up to, had this to say:
“I’m not going to comment about any pending bills.”
Why not? If you’re going to tear up the rule book on coastal development, doesn’t the public deserve an explanation, even if you’ve already got one foot out the door?
The Worthe project would sit just up from the beach in Santa Monica, and, in previous incarnations, it has included a luxury hotel, apartments and a Frank Gehry museum. The Coastal Commission signed off on it a few years ago after extended tussles and finally an agreement regarding low-cost housing provisions. After getting the green light, Worthe pulled back, and his permit expired.
But then Newsom came to the rescue with a trailer bill that aides were still pushing as of Thursday, sources tell me. It would have allowed for an unnamed project in that same location to be put forward again, this time without normal regulatory review in the event that Santa Monica failed to complete its own local coastal plan (LCP) by 2028
And since it could be difficult to meet that deadline, Newsom’s bill essentially provided a way to escape the kind of critical review demanded by the Coastal Act.
In anticipation of a Friday meeting between Newsom and the leaders of the Senate and Assembly, Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Santa Monica) rallied legislators to implore the governor to back off.
Zbur, who had been working on his own coastal development and public access bill and helping assemble Santa Monica’s LCP, was one of a dozen legislators who signed a salty missive that was sent Friday to Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.
“We are frustrated that, once again, we must devote time and energy to working to defeat this harmful proposal that creates unprecedented exemptions from the Coastal Act,” the letter said.
It must have made an impact. Late Friday night, when the last whistle blew at the sausage factory, the Newsom exemption had been pulled back.
Victory for the coast.
Zbur told me Saturday morning that it was not clear how the matter had played out when the governor met with the two legislative leaders Friday, but Zbur was grateful to all three of them for letting the matter drop.
“This wasn’t about the project,” Zbur said. “It was about the precedent that would have been set on having people come in and exempting a certain project from the Coastal Act. It would have been a terrible precedent.”
Despite this threat and the recent big-footing by Trump, there’s a silver lining in all of this.
“As long as there are people who want to monetize the coast for their own benefit, you’re going to need people to rise up and say no,” said Kim Delfino, an environmental attorney and founder of Earth Advocacy.
And people did rise up.
Last week, dozens of organizations signed a letter to the governor opposing any “last-minute legislation to create dangerous exemptions to the Coastal Act.” Among them were Heal the Bay, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, L.A. Waterkeeper, Azul, the Surfrider Foundation and Orange County Coastkeeper.
I can think of several ways to end this column, but at the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think I can do better than to lean on this reminder:
The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Source link
California battles Trump plan to limit coastal oversight
In a striking demonstration of support, hundreds of fired up Californians rallied in Santa Monica to speak out against the Trump administration’s attempt to wrest local control over the state’s beloved coastline.
The Golden State’s top environmental leaders, along with prominent elected officials, environmentalists, business coalitions, community activists, Indigenous groups and everyday citizens, packed a public hearing Monday before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Coastal Management, which has been tasked with conducting an unprecedented investigation that could ultimately strip California of its power to say no to federal projects.
Experts see the investigation — framed as a performance review of the state’s coastal management practices — as a thinly veiled attempt by Trump officials to open California’s coast to more offshore oil drilling, more rocket launches and possibly even floating nuclear reactors. If the federal government succeeds, many worry it could set the stage for similar actions in other coastal states.
“I’m scared, not because we haven’t built something worth protecting — we have. I’m scared because this meeting is performance theater. In some ways, the decision seems already made,” said Maureen Ellenberger, a resident of Santa Barbara who said she is haunted by the possibility of another oil spill. “But I’m speaking today anyway, so there’s a record. So years from now… everyone will know we fought, that we did not consent.”
Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, speaks during a NOAA hearing as Larry Goldzband, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, awaits his turn to make comments.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
Citing California’s “environmental extremism,” Trump officials are attempting to decertify the state’s authority under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA. The act grants coastal states the right to review and object to any project in federal waters that clashes with state policy.
For the last five decades, the CZMA has been celebrated as a bipartisan co-management framework between coastal states and the federal government — and in California, the process had been relatively smooth through every presidential administration until Trump’s.
Tensions escalated in May when U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared that “California has repeatedly and unfoundedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith” and announced that he was ordering a fresh evaluation of the state’s CZMA compliance using a “new approach.” He specifically instructed NOAA, which is under his purview, to take offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, spaceport infrastructure, desalination projects and undersea cables into consideration, citing national priorities and economic interests.
Performance reviews under the CZMA are not uncommon (most states are subject to a routine review every five to 10 years) but what’s unusual in this case is the callout to specific industries, as well as the politically charged nature of how the review was announced (state officials learned they were under review through a social media post from the U.S. Department of Commerce.)
What was also unusual was the fact California had also just undergone a routine review during the Biden administration.
A draft of that review, which was completed in 2024, but not finalized because of the change in administration, gave top marks to the three California agencies charged with implementing the CZMA — the California Coastal Commission, the California State Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The review found no issues.
Joelle Gore, left, chief of the stewardship division at the NOAA Office for Coastal Management and Keelin Kuipers, right, acting director at NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management, listen to more than four hours of public comments.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
The new Lutnick-ordered review began in earnest on Monday with the only hearing that people can attend in-person during the 45-day-public comment period. (Two virtual hearings will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, and NOAA is required to review all written comments that are submitted from members of the public through Aug. 22.)
More than 15,000 people have written comments so far, and for more than four hours Monday, surfers, fishers, marine scientists, community activists, business owners, real estate brokers and Californians from a wide swath of interest groups — many traveling from Marin, San Jose, Mendocino and other parts of the state — lined up to speak before NOAA’s acting director for coastal management.
Nobody in attendance spoke in favor of the federal review. As people in the crowd held up signs declaring “NO FEDERAL TAKEOVER” and “NO SELLOUTS FOR BIG OIL,” speakers expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to take note of the state’s thriving marine economy.
The crowd erupted in whoops and applause after each person spoke their three minutes of public comments. A number of speakers, some moved to tears, expressed afterward that they had never been more proud to be a Californian.
“It was just example after example after example of how the state’s coastal management program is working — it was really putting into the record those facts and also just so many personal stories,” said Jennifer Savage, a longtime policy advocate for Surfrider Foundation who drove more than 670 miles from Humboldt to testify at the hearing. “It showed more than anything that being able to go to the beach is such a unifying shared joy in California.”
The State’s top environmental leaders also took turns speaking about how the CZMA has long facilitated open dialogue and collaboration between the state and federal government.
“We sincerely hope that this review is not merely a pretense for removing California’s ability to hold public hearings on offshore oil and gas projects,” said Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the Coastal Commission. “California has received very little information about why this new federal review is being undertaken. Still, we welcome a fair and transparent evaluation. Our record speaks for itself.”
Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary for Natural Resources, provides public comment during a NOAA hearing.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
Out of the more than 3,700 federal actions that have come before the Coastal Commission for review since the 1970s, the commission has aligned with the federal actions 96% of the time, Huckelbridge said.
Current and former coastal officials also spoke about their experiences with past reviews and questioned the unusual timing of this evaluation and how it doesn’t follow standard procedure.
“I have personally participated in several periodic reviews, and what has happened in this review is unprecedented and, quite frankly, bizarre. There is absolutely no basis for reopening the periodic review conducted in 2024,” said Jack Ainsworth, who had worked at the coastal commission for 34 years and led it for seven of those years. “I would also note that California is recognized as the gold standard for integrated coastal management in the United States and around the world.”
At a NOAA hearing Monday, the crowd applauded after each speaker expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to keep things the way they are.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
What happens after this week’s hearings will be uncharted territory, but experts say that if the review does end up taking issue with California’s coastal management program, the state should be given the opportunity to respond to any proposed changes. The process laid out in the law appears to include multiple steps and opportunities for discussion, they said.
At a rally outside the meeting room Monday, more than a hundred environmentalists gathered alongside congressmembers, county supervisors, Indigenous leaders, environmental justice groups and business coalitions to further amplify the many voices that represent California.
Toni Cordero, a board member of Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, Surfrider Foundation, and Environmental Defense Center, speaks at a rally before a NOAA hearing Monday.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
“The Creator put us here to coexist and to collaborate in caring for our mother ocean and for all her relatives, all of her inhabitants and all those who call this coast home,” said Toni Cordero, a former tribal chair of the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation who also served as a deputy state attorney general for more than 25 years. “We must remember them. It is their homelands, their well-being and their futures that are also at stake under the guise of ensuring compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.”
The crowd waved signs and cheered again as Wade Crowfoot, California’s Secretary for Natural Resources, stepped up to speak.
“It has been clear from Governor Newsom to Attorney General Bonta to our legislators to our congressional delegation: California’s coast is not for sale, and a hostile takeover of our coast by the federal government… won’t be tolerated,” Crowfoot declared.
“So rest assured,” he said. “We stand in strong solidarity with everyone here today — whether you’re a tribal government, a local government, a conservation organization or just somebody that likes to get out and be on a beach that’s safe and healthy, we are making our voices heard.”
Source link